HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.638 of 2024 Sri Uttam Kumar Saha, S/o Late Lal Mohan Saha, (Aged about 53 years), Resident of Town Pratapgarh, Road No.1, P.O. Town Pratapgarh, P.S. East Agartala, Sub-Division- Sadar, District- West Triprua. ……..Petitioner – V e r s u s – 1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010. 2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010. 4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, Netaji Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN-799001. …….. Respondent(s) 5. Sri Shibu Deb, Son of Motilal Deb, Work Assistant, Office of Assistant Engineer, Central-VIII Sub-Division, A.D. Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- A.D. Nagar, Agartala, District- West Tripura. …….. Proforma Respondent For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate. Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA. Date of hearing and delivery : 9th April, 2025. of Judgment & Order Whether fit for reporting : NO. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents, now respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Daily Rated Worker (for short, DRW)/casual worker on 27.07.1992 under the official respondents and at that time, his educational qualification was Madhyamik plucked. However, while serving as DRW, he passed Madhyamik examination in the year 2006. As stated, thereafter, he vide his letter dated 15.06.2006 submitted the marksheet of Madhyamik examination and urged his authority for engaging him as Group-C employee. Thereafter, the services of total 14 nos. of such casual workers including the petitioner serving under the Public Works Department (for short, PWD) were regularized to the post of Peon/Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide office Memo No.F.6(29)-PWD(E- II)/2008(L) dated 08.06.2009 issued by respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he alongwith proforma-respondent No.5, Sri Shibu Deb (who was then working as peon) and others appeared in the departmental type test examination. Though said Sri Shibu Deb could not qualify, but the petitioner successfully passed it, and then, vide order dated 04.03.2014, he was appointed on promotion as LDC but said Sri Shibu Deb was not. Thereafter, his pay was fixed from the date of his joining on the promotional post in the year 2014. 3. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, also joined the PWD as DRW on 08.08.1988, and at that time, he was also Madhyamik plucked and he passed Madhyamik examination in the year 1989, i.e., after his engagement as DRW and vide office order dated 10.01.2008, his service was regularized in the post of Peon w.e.f. 01.01.2007, but suddenly on 29.05.2021, a fresh appointment letter was issued in his favour appointing him to the post of Work Assistant on regular basis w.e.f. the date of regularization of his service in the post of Group-D in cancellation of his earlier appointment letter issued on 10.01.2008 and it was also ordered that his pay scale would be fixed in the relevant grade for regularization with prospective effect, but with notional fixation from 01.01.2007. 4. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the present petitioner is similarly situated person or rather in a better footings than said proforma-respondent No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, whose pay was ordered to be notionally fixed against Group-C post w.e.f. 01.01.2007, whereas the pay of the present petitioner was fixed against such Group-C post only from the year 2014. Learned counsel also refers to a judgment dated 13.09.2024, passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in a case passed in Smt. Anima Debnath versus The State of Tripura & Others in WP(C) No.410 of 2024 and another judgment of the same date in case of Smt. Aparajita Bhowmik versus The State of Tripura & Others in WP(C) No.411 of 2024, where in both the said cases, the petitioners were also similarly situated persons like the present petitioner, but taking note of the case of the said proforma- respondent, Sri Shibu Deb, this Court directed the respondents-State to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment as Group-C employee in accordance with the Recruitment Rules prescribed for the post of Group-C within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of order. Thereafter, in terms of said judgments, both the said petitioners, who were Group-D employees were promoted as Lower Division Clerk (Group-C) w.e.f. the date of regularization of their services against such Group D posts i.e. from 01.07.2008, vide two office orders issued by the PWD on 02.01.2025. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the present case is also covered by the decisions of both the said two cases, and therefore, necessary direction may be passed to the respondents for fixation of the petitioner’s pay notionally w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as Group C employee. 5. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., on the other hand, argues that the petitioner before passing the Madhyamik examination, did not obtain any permission from the Department and moreover, he did not get his academic qualification recorded in his service record after passing of said examination and now suddenly, after so many years he has approached this Court for such notional fixation w.e.f. the date of his regularization of service as Group-D employee, and therefore, the petition also suffers from delay and laches. 6. This Court has taken note of the submissions of both sides and the materials placed in the record. So far the plea raised by the respondents that without permission of the Department, the petitioner appeared in Madhyamik examination, is concerned, this matter has already been dealt with in the judgments dated 13.09.2024 passed in said WP(C) No.410 of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024. The Court in those cases observed that as the petitioners were working as Casual Workers, there was no necessity for them for obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ (for short, NOC) from the competent authority. Same principle will also apply in the present case. Above said judgments are not challenged by the respondents-State in any higher forum, rather, they have complied with the directions of the Court. It is also a fact that, vide office order dated 29.05.2021, regularization of service of said Sri Shibu Deb against Group-C post was given w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e., from the date when service of said Sri Shibu Deb was regularized as Group-D employee. It is also discernible that the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court passed in WP(C) No.410 of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024, which are unchallenged by the respondents. 7. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to get similar benefits as was provided to Sri Shibu Deb (Pro. respondent no.5). In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner for fixing his pay against Group-C post notionally w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and to re-fix his salary accordingly. With such observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. JUDGE Dinashree SATABD I DUTTA Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA Date: 2025.04.16 17:58:32 +05'30'